Parents' Knowledge And Predictions About The Age Of Menarche: Experimental Evidence From Honduras
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Parents’ Knowledge And Predictions About The Age Of
Menarche: Experimental Evidence From Honduras
Michela Accerenzi
Fundación ETEA - Development Institute of Universidad Loyola Andalucía
Pablo Brañas-Garza
Universidad Loyola Andalucía
Diego Jorrat ( dajorrat@gmail.com )
Universidad Loyola Andalucía
Research Article
Keywords: Age of menarche, self-report, guessing, prediction accuracy
Posted Date: March 18th, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1399529/v2
License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Page 1/11Abstract
Access to accurate, timely and age-appropriate information about menarche is an essential part of menstrual health.
Reliable evidence shows that girls primarily obtain information from their mothers and/or other female family
members, therefore, it is important to determine parents’ knowledge and their predictions about other parents’
knowledge of the age of menarche. To this end, we performed a pre-registered study with data collected from 360
households in Santa Rosa de Copán, Honduras. We implemented a novel procedure to avoid social desirability bias
whereby participants answered two separated questions: i) their knowledge about the age of menarche (self-report) and
ii) to predict or guess the modal response of the other participants regarding the same question (modal guess).
Participants were paid according to accuracy. Both questions appeared randomly in the survey. Results show that
parents’ knowledge is high in the study area. Recent studies indicate the age of menarche at 12 years old and 56.11%
of the sample gave the same response while 62.78% hit the modal value. We estimated the impact of different
sociodemographic variables and found only marginal differences. Interestingly, people with formal education and
women tend to respond with lower predictions.
I. Introduction
Until relatively recently, the topic of menstruation has been overlooked both in international conventions on human
rights (Boosley and Wilson, 2013) and in body politics in development. The first attempts to address the issue in an
international context originated primarily within the Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene sector in Africa and Asia, and have
largely focused on Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM)[1] (UNICEF, 2013).
MHM programs have mainly been implemented in schools and are based on the general assumption that poor girls in
developing countries share the same situation: lack of information about the menstrual cycle, shame and discomfort
during menstruation due to cultural myths and taboos, limited choices about affordable products, insufficient access to
private and safe facilities to manage bleeding and menstrual products, and high school dropout rates due to difficulties
relating to mensuration (FSG, 2016; Kirk and Sommer, 2006; Mythri Speaks, 2016; Sclar et al., 2018; Sommer, 2010;
Sumpter and Torondel, 2013; Winkler and Roaf, 2015). However, evidence to support the efficacy of MHM programs is
far from conclusive (Accerenzi, 2018; Bobel, 2019; Hennegan, 2020).
A common limitation of such programs is that they often fail to include parents in their activities. However, it is
important to acknowledge that parents are hugely influenced by social norms and are responsible for making the
decisions on this matter at the household level. Hence, both parents’ knowledge and their social norms play a critical
role in the information that adolescents receive and how they behave.
As a consequence, in this paper we focus on parents’ knowledge and predictions about the age of menarche. We
explore whether parents have accurate knowledge about the age of menarche and whether they are able to predict or
guess the distribution of the modal value of other parents’ responses, in other words, the social norm (Nagel, 1995;
Krupka et al., 2013). To overcome possible social desirability bias[2] in the study (Krumpal, 2013; Latkin, 2017; Stuart
and Grimes, 2009), we paid participants based on the accuracy of their answers (50 Honduran Lempiras if they hit the
right answer).
There are two important aspects to consider in this study. First, access to accurate, timely, and age-appropriate
information about menstruation is an essential part of menstrual health (Hennegan et al., 2021). Evidence shows that
girls primarily obtain information from their mothers and/or other female family members (Chandra-Mouli and Patel,
2017; Lesch and Kruger, 2005; Uskul, 2004; Zakaria et al., 2019). Hence, determining whether parents are adequately
Page 2/11informed is of paramount importance, given that if they are misinformed they might not only provide girls with incorrect
information, but they might also provide it too late, which leaves girls unprepared to face their first cycle (Uskul, 2004).
Second, most societies have established social norms about how menstruators and others are expected to behave in a
given social situation (Gavrillets and Richerson, 2017; Lapinski and Rimal, 2005). General societal misinformation
about the age of menarche could indicate that what parents consider “normal” is incorrect, which could lead them to
making bad decisions regarding their daughters’ health.
To determine to what extent the general assumptions regarding parents’ knowledge about menstruation are accurate in
West Honduras, we conducted a pre-registered field experiment in Santa Rosa de Copán (a region where no MHM or
similar programs have ever been implemented)
To this end, we explored two research questions: a) do parents have accurate knowledge about the age of menarche?
and b) can they accurately predict or guess whether other parents also have accurate knowledge about the age of
menarche? The rest of the paper is organized as follows. The next section presents the methods and procedures.
Section III describes the sample. Section IV focuses on the results and Section V presents the conclusions.
1
To understand the magnitude of this phenomenon, see Menstrual Hygiene Day http://menstrualhygieneday.org,
Menstrual Health Hub https://mhhub.org/, and Society for Menstrual Cycle Research http://menstruationresearch.org/.
2
While self-reported answers might be truthful or not, incentive compatible mechanisms (paid predictions) are strategy
proof. In other words, a subject fares best by being truthful. For example, a country is having elections and there are two
political parties: A and B. If a follower of party B is asked who will win, they will say B due to their own
preferences/wishes, regardless of the true distribution of votes. In turn, a follower of party A would say A. However, if
they are asked to “predict” the results and paid based on their accuracy then their best strategy would be to tell the
truth, regardless of their own preferences.
Ii. Methods And Procedures
We ran a lab-in-the-field experiment in Santa Rosa de Copán (Honduras) from May 1-14, 2019, and randomly selected
360 households from four different districts (Osorio, El Carmen, Prado Alto, and Santa Teresa) to interview.
Participants were asked two separated questions: i) their knowledge about the age of menarche (self-report SR), and ii)
to predict the modal response of the other participants regarding the same question (modal guess MG)[1]. Appendix A
shows the original instructions (in Spanish) and B the translation in English. It is important to highlight that SR and MG
are not necessarily correlated. While SR captures an individual’s knowledge about the age of menarche, MG measures
society’s knowledge about the same subject.
Our design considers both incentives and possible order effects. We used a monetary incentive in the MG task (a
monetary award was given if the mode was hit and 0 otherwise) to reduce social desirability bias. Given that the order
of the questions may also contribute to bias (see Brañas-Garza et al., 2021), we randomized the question order using
p=0.5 to SR à MG and 1-p to MG à SR. As a result, half of the participants (n=186) answered SR à MG, and the other
half (n=174) MG à SR (see Appendix A and B).
We also collected participant sociodemographic characteristics to assess possible biases, primarily: sex, education,
ethnic group, and socioeconomic status, as well as the composition of the household in terms of girls and boys.
The field experiment was conducted by a Honduran organization, PILARH. Enumerators were trained on the objectives
of the study, how to conduct the survey, confidentiality, and informed consent. The method was pre-tested in the field
Page 3/11with 24 participants and reviewed before implementation.
Enumerators used paper-based questionnaires and received a list of households they had to visit, including the type of
questionnaire (treatment) they had to implement. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in households and only one
experimental subject was interviewed per household (father, mother, or guardian). The random allocation of
participants into (order) treatments was made prior to the visit, therefore the enumerators had no influence on the
selection.
The field study was pre-registered in AsPredicted before execution. The documentation can be consulted here:
https://aspredicted.org/ps766.pdf.
Sample and outcome variables
To ensure the sample selection included households from different socioeconomic groups, we considered 11 schools
with populations reflecting different socioeconomic levels. The respondents from the socioeconomic groups were
divided as follows: 31% were from low-income, 34% from middle income, and 35% from high income households.
Of the total 360 participants, 50 were men and 310 women. The age of respondents varied from 22 to 78 with the
following frequencies: 22-25 (15%), 26-30 (28%), 31-35 (21%), 36-40 (16%), 41-45 (9%), 46-50 (4%), and over 50 (7%).
Most respondents over 50 were grandparents.
The respondents cover the entire spectrum of level of education, although most are concentrated in the lower levels:
49% primary education (6 years of schooling) or less, while only 3% held a university degree or higher (see Appendix C).
As regards ethnicity: 11% were Chorti, 7% Lenca, almost 8% Maya Chorti, 70% Mestizo, and 4% were from other groups.
In order to assess poverty levels, respondents were asked about access to food in the week previous to the survey: 23%
responded that they did not have enough money to feed their children.
Household composition was also determined to assess whether parents with at least one daughter were more informed
than those with only sons: 35% of responders had only male children, whilst 65% had at least one female child, but only
21% had at least one daughter who was at least 12 or older (experience).
The main objective of this study was to determine whether parents had knowledge of the age of menarche and what
they believe regarding other parents’ knowledge. The age of menarche varies across countries and time, yet is
considered healthy when it happens starts between the ages of 9 and 16. In Honduras, a recent study found that 93.3%
of respondents had their first menstruation at 12 (Vides Torres et al., 2017)[2].
As can be seen below, our sample average is 12.13 with a mode exactly equal to 12. Using the data on the mean age of
menarche in Honduras and the modal value of 12 from the sample, we defined the following outcome variables:
Self-report: SRHit (takes the value of 1 if respondents answer 12 and 0 otherwise), SRUnder (=1 if reported age is
lower than 12 and 0 otherwise) and SROver (=1 if reported age is higher than 12 and 0 otherwise).
Modal guess: MGHit (takes the value of 1 if respondents guess 12 and 0 otherwise), MGUnder (=1 if respondents
guess lower than 12 and 0 otherwise) and MGOver (=1 if respondents guess higher than 12 and 0 otherwise).
Therefore, the first set of items – SRHit, SRUnder, and SROver – determine whether parents have accurate knowledge
while the second set – MGHit, MGUnder, and MGOver – explores whether they think other parents are also well
informed.
Page 4/111
The ex-ante answer might be any positive (integer) number, although we expected numbers between 8 and 16.
2 Although the study was conducted in the municipality of Choluteca, we consider it to be a good proxy for the situation
of Santa Rosa de Copán as a whole.
Iii. Results
Figure 1 shows the distribution of self-report answers, which highlights that the majority of the sample (56.11%)
reported the exact value of the age of menarche, in other words, SRHit=1. Those who over/under reported are fairly
distributed across the range, in fact, SROver=25.28% and SRUnder=18.61%.
Table 1 provides the regression results for the outcome variables. The order dummy controls for the order of the
questions. The variable minority group is equal to 1 if the respondent belongs to an ethnic minority group (Lenca,
Chorti, Maya Chorti) and 0 if they are mestizo.
Column 1 shows that age and belonging to a minority group reduce the probability of providing the right answer,
however this effect is only marginally significant (p=0.09 and p=0.06)[1]. Interestingly, the interaction between female
and minority shows positive but marginal effects (p=0.07). Column 2 shows that respondents with higher education are
less likely to overpredict (p=0.001), but more likely to underpredict the age of menarche (Column 3, p=0.036)[2]. In turn,
female shows a significant and positive coefficient in SRUnder, suggesting that women tend to underpredict the age of
menarche[3]. The other variables (sufficient income, experience, minority, and task order) have no effect on any of the
three outcomes.
Result 1: Most of the sample had accurate knowledge about the age of menarche
We now focus on the results of the respondents’ predictions or guesses about other respondents’ knowledge as regards
the age of menarche. As well as self-report responses, Figure 1 also shows the distribution of guesses. A significant
percentage of the sample, 62.78%, hit the modal value. As in the case of self-reported data, those who over or
underpredict are fairly distributed along the range.
In Column 4, Table 1, we estimated the probability of hitting the modal age answered by others. Respondents with
experience have a lower probability of hitting the modal age (p=0.01) and are more likely to underpredict the mode
(p=0.04). The rest of the variables are not significant. Column 5 shows that education and task order reduce the
probability of overpredicting the modal age (p=0.03, p=0.08[1], respectively). The other control variables have no
significant effects.
Result 2: Most of the sample accurately guessed the modal value of the age of menarche.
Finally, we combined both self-report and guesses for each participant to ascertain an overall measure of their level of
information[2]. Participants were labelled informed when SRHit=MGHit=1 and misinformed when SRHit=MGHit=0. We
found that 45.56% of the sample belong to the former category while 26.67% fall into the latter.
Columns 7 and 8 show that parents with experience are less likely to be informed while parents with higher education
have a positive and marginal effect on the probability of being misinformed. Interestingly, the other variables have no
impact on the level of information.
Result 3: A large percentage of the sample had accurate knowledge about the age of menarche and accurately guessed
the level of knowledge of the other respondents.
Page 5/11Overall, Results 1-3 show that the parents in our sample were well informed: not only do they have accurate knowledge
about the age of menarche but they also accurately guessed the level of knowledge of the other participants.
It should be noted that our results are lower bound. If we considered a more generous definition of Hit, for instance,
letting subjects make an error of “+/- 1 year” we would get even better results. In particular, SRHit would increase from
56.11% to 85.56%, MGHit from 62.78% to 95.83% and SRHit=MGHit from 45.56% to 83.05%. Therefore, as a rule, it
should not be assumed that parents are uninformed.
1The mean reported by minority groups is 12.10 while the mean reported by mestizos (majority) is 12.14. However, the
difference between both groups is not significant (p=0.74).
2
For each additional year of education, the age of menarche reported decreased by 0.3%.
3Females report an average age of menarche of 12.10 while males report an average of 12.28. This difference is not
significant (p=0.25), and the result in Column 3 must be considered with caution since the sample is not balanced by
sex.
4
When MG is the second question, the mean is 12.06 and when it is the first, 12.20 (p=0.08).
5
Both SR and MG show similar distributions: same mode, similar means (t-test, p>0.40) and correlation (rho= 0.47
(p=0.00). In fact, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that both variables present the same distribution (p>0.80).
Iv. Discussion
A common hypothesis behind Menstrual Hygiene Management (MHM) programs is that poor adolescent girls in
developing countries do not receive accurate, timely, and age-appropriate information about menstruation. Studies
across the world show that adult members of the family, especially mothers and other female members, are one of the
primary sources of information for adolescents on reproductive health.
Using data from 360 households, we determined that knowledge about the age of menarche is high among parents in
Santa Rosa de Copán given that 56.11% reported the precise age of menarche that coincides with recent studies
(provided by Vides Torres et al., 2017). Moreover, respondents were also able to predict (in a significant 62.78%) the
modal response of other participants.
Interestingly, differences in knowledge are poorly explained by sociodemographics. Variables such as education
and experience (at least 1 daughter age>12), both with the expected sign, only have marginal effects. These results are
in line with Mbugua (2007), who found that educated mothers in urban Kenya experience sociocultural and religious
inhibitions that hold them back from providing meaningful sex-education, including information about menarche, to
their pre-adolescent and adolescent daughters. In accordance with Baumann et al. (2019), who found that
caste/ethnicity was a significant predictor of menstrual knowledge and practices in Nepal, we also found
that misinformation is related to minority ethnic groups, although only marginally. An unexpected result was that
females (compared to males) are more likely to underpredict the age of menarche (p=0.001). A possible explanation is
that they rely more on personal experience.
Another interesting result is that no differences were found between the self-reported data and the guesses about the
collective modal response. The latter implies that there was no social desirability bias, which suggests that the age of
Page 6/11menarche is not such a sensitive topic in Honduras as it is in other cultures. A possible explanation is that the age of
menarche might be less problematic than other topics surrounding the menstrual cycle. In order to address these
issues, further research is needed to understand the quality of society’s knowledge as well as possible myths and
taboos about menstruation that might affect girls’ experience.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Ethical approval for the study was provided by Loyola Andalucía Ethics Committee beforehand. All participants signed
an informed consent document prior to data collection for this study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Availability of data and material
All of the main data has been included in the results. Additional materials with details may be obtained from the
corresponding author. Data in Stata file is also available at the link:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/nckwermlmxsotyq/AADkZYVHXhToXS54XcvUGSNha?dl=0.
Funding
This work received financial support by The Spanish National Science Foundation (PGC2018-093506-B-I00), Excelencia
Junta de Andalucia (PY-18-FR-0007) and Fundación ETEA - Development Institute of Universidad Loyola Andalucía,
Spain.
Authors' contributions
All authors were responsible for the structure of this paper. MA conceived, designed and performed the experiment,
interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. DJ designed the study and performed the experiment, run the
statistical analysis and drafted the manuscript. PB designed the study, performed the experiment, and did the critical
revisions of the paper. The authors all approved the final versions for submission.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Lorenzo Estepa and Gladis Gonzáles for their assistance, as well as Associación PILARH for
coordinating the data collection in Honduras.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
References
1. Accerenzi, M. (2018). Políticas corporales en desarrollo: una crítica feminista y decolonial a las intervenciones
sobre higiene menstrual. IV International Conference on Development Studies, Spain.
https://eventos.uloyola.es/file_manager/getFile/66797.html.
Page 7/112. Baumann, S., Lhaki, P., and Burke, J. G. (2019). Assessing the Role of Caste/Ethnicity in Predicting Menstrual
Knowledge, Attitude and Practices in Nepal. Global Public Health 14(9):1288–1301.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2019.1583267
3. Bobel, C. (2018). The Managed Body. Developing Girls and Menstrual Health in the Global South. Palgrave
Macmillan.
4. Boosey, R. and Wilson, E. (2013). A Vicious Cycle of Silence: What are the implications of the menstruation taboo
for the fulfilment of women and girls' human rights and, to what extent is the menstruation taboo addressed by
international human rights law and human rights bodies? University of Sheffield-ScHARR Report Series No. 29
5. Brañas-Garza, P., Ciacci, R., and Rascón-Ramírez, E. (2021). Anchors matter: eliciting maternal beliefs on
educational choices. Mimeo.
6. Chandra-Mouli, V., and Patel, S. V. (2017). Mapping the knowledge and understanding of menarche, menstrual
hygiene and menstrual health among adolescent girls in low-and middle-income countries. Reproductive Health 14:
Article 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-017-0293-6.
7. FSG (2016): An opportunity to address menstrual health and gender equity.
http://www.fsg.org/publications/opportunity-address-menstrual-health-and-gender-equity#download-area
8. Gavrilets, S., and Richerson, P. J. (2017). Collective action and the evolution of social norm internalization.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(23), 6068–6073.
9. Hennegan, J. (2020). Interventions to Improve Menstrual Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Do We
Know What Works? In Bobel at al. (eds): The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0614-7_47
10. Hennegan, J., Winkler, I. T., Bobel, C., Keiser, D., Hampton, J., Larsson, G., Chandra-Mouli, V., Plesons, M., Mahon, T.
(2021). Menstrual health: a definition for policy, practice, and research. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters,
29(1): Article: 1911618. https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2021.1911618
11. Kirk, J. and Sommer, M. (2006). Menstruation and body awareness: linking girls’ health with girls’ education.
http://www.susana.org/_resources/documents/default/2-1200-kirk-2006-menstruation-kit-paper.pdf
12. Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: a literature review. Quality &
Quantity 47(4): 2025–2047.
13. Krupka, E. and Weber, R. A. (2013). Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game
Sharing Vary? Journal of European Economic Association 11(3): 495–524.
14. Latkin, C. A., Edwards, C., Davey-Rothwell, M. A., and Tobin, K. E. (2017). The relationship between social
desirability bias and self-reports of health, substance use, and social network factors among urban substance
users in Baltimore, Maryland. Addictive Behaviors 73: 133–136.
15. Lapinski, M. K., and Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory 15(2): 127–147.
16. Lesch, E. and Kruger, L. (2005). Mothers, daughters and sexual agency in one low-income South African
community. Social Science & Medicine 61: 1072–1082.
17. Mbugua, N. (2007). Factors inhibiting educated mothers in Kenya from giving meaningful sex-education to their
daughters. Social Science & Medicine 64: 1079–1089.
18. Mythri Speaks (2016). Menstruation: Rhetoric, Research, Reality.
https://mythrispeaks.wordpress.com/2016/06/13/menstruation-rhetoric-research-reality/
19. Nagel, R. M. (1995). Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study. The American Economic Review 85(5):
1313–1326.
Page 8/1120. Sclar, G.D., Penakalapati, G., Caruso, B.A., Rehfuess, E.A., Gran, J.V., Alexander, K.T., Freeman, M.C., Boisson, S.,
Medlicott, K., and Clasen, T. (2018). Exploring the relationship between sanitation and mental and social wellbeing:
A systematic review and qualitative synthesis. Social Science & Medicine 217: 121–134.
21. Sommer, M. (2010, April 24–26). Utilizing participatory and quantitative methods for effective menstrual-hygiene
management related policy and planning. UNICEF-GPIA Conference, New York.
22. Stuart, G. and Grimes, D. (2009). Social desirability bias in family planning studies: a neglected problem.
Contraception 80: 108–112.
23. Sumpter, C. and Torondel, B. (2013). A Systematic Review of the Health and Social Effects of Menstrual Hygiene
Management. PLoS ONE 8(4): e62004.
24. UNICEF (2013). WASH in Schools Empowers Girl’s Education. Proceeding of the Menstrual Hygiene Management in
Schools Virtual Conference 2013.
25. Uskul, A.K. (2004). Women’s menarche stories from a multicultural sample. Social Science & Medicine 59: 667–
679.
26. Vides Torres, S. J., Delcid Morazán, A. F., Barcan Batchvaroff, M. E., and Barahona Zelaya, W. P. (2017).
Caracterización Sociodemográfica Clínica de Adolescentes Embarazadas. IMedPubJournals Vol. 13 No. 1: 1
https://doi.org/10.3823/1334
27. Winkler, I. T. and Roaf, V. (2015). Taking the bloody linen out of the closet: menstrual hygiene as a priority for
achieving gender equality. Cardozo Journal of Law and Gender 21(1): 1–37.
28. Zakaria, M., Xu, J., Karim, F. and Cheng, F. (2019). Reproductive health communication between mother and
adolescent daughter in Bangladesh: a cross-sectional study. Reproductive Health 16:114.
Table
Table 1. Regression results for self-report, modal guesses , and informed variables
Page 9/11(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
SRHit SROver SRUnder MGHit MGOver MGUnder Informed Misinformed
Age -0.005* 0.003 0.002 -0.002 0.002 0.001 -0.003 0.003
(0.003) (0.003) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003) (0.002) (0.003) (0.003)
Sufficient -0.014 -0.030 0.043 -0.081 0.073 0.008 -0.028 0.066
income
(0.063) (0.057) (0.047) (0.060) (0.051) (0.044) (0.064) (0.053)
Education 0.007 -0.018*** 0.011** 0.008 -0.012** 0.004 0.005 -0.010*
(respondents)
(0.006) (0.006) (0.005) (0.006) (0.005) (0.005) (0.006) (0.006)
Task order 0.015 -0.027 0.012 0.047 -0.076* 0.028 0.000 -0.062
(0.052) (0.045) (0.041) (0.051) (0.044) (0.037) (0.053) (0.046)
Experience -0.105 0.021 0.084 -0.169** 0.060 0.108** -0.138** 0.136**
(at least 1
daughter
age>12)
(0.066) (0.057) (0.055) (0.066) (0.058) (0.053) (0.064) (0.063)
Female -0.071 -0.074 0.145*** 0.053 -0.096 0.043 0.002 0.019
(0.095) (0.092) (0.054) (0.096) (0.092) (0.058) (0.097) (0.086)
Minority -0.267* 0.157 0.110 0.039 -0.042 0.003 -0.137 0.091
(0.142) (0.144) (0.106) (0.141) (0.132) (0.093) (0.141) (0.131)
Female and 0.280* -0.139 -0.141 -0.056 0.037 0.019 0.136 -0.088
Minority
(0.155) (0.154) (0.115) (0.153) (0.143) (0.100) (0.154) (0.141)
Constant 0.762*** 0.391*** -0.153 0.669*** 0.338** -0.007 0.590*** 0.158
(0.162) (0.151) (0.109) (0.164) (0.154) (0.096) (0.167) (0.148)
Observations 355 355 355 355 355 355 355 355
R-squared 0.031 0.054 0.035 0.037 0.037 0.025 0.026 0.043
Note: Columns 1 to 8 present the OLS estimations of the explanatory variables on the different outcome variables.
Robust standard errors in parentheses. Asterisks represent different significance levels: *** pDistribution of self-report responses and modal guesses about the age of menarche
Supplementary Files
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Appendix.docx
Page 11/11You can also read
